Jones/ESPNMAG

[Boom_70]

70,

70,

Sirs, Madames,

Threads like this make a case for membership by application. It's one thing to have some honest criticism from peers, anyone ranging from jg to a kid working at some Dust Bowl weekly. Or even a kid in j-school. But to have some drive-by shooting from a sj-hating troll who writes about "the media elites" is a bit much. I don't mind having pieces ship on--it has happened here and it will happen again. I have no problem with it so long as it's honest, industry criticism. And if peers want to ship on espn, knock yourselves out. Tell it here or to the ombudsman, make my day. But the lurker not-in-the-biz troll trashing those who toil and take pride in what they do and have put in years to get to their place in the game ... that isn't just tiresome. It's not an ashault on the writer. It's an ashault on the readers here. It's an ashault on the site.

o-<

It seems like you are are suggesting that readers are not allowed to criticize.

If you like a story send heaps of praise, If you don't like it then tough.

See, you're not reading closely enough ... again.

Readers have comment boxes on newspaper and magazine sites to throw their uninformed grenades into. If you are a reader and non-peer and have strongly felt opinions, send something in to the letters page. Read-only for non-SJs, I'd have no problem with. SJ would be great for peer review, the stuff of the Workshop. The unfortunate effect of having non-biz people flaming all over the place is that it drags the site into disrepute. It doesn't represent us. It's like having naturopath quacks and some guy from the health-food store commemting on the AMA site. A professional site.

o-<

Nah - it's your writing. Unless someone has the time to read your work through 10 - 12 times its barely understandable- be it a post here or one of your columns.
Everything you do is overwritten and what might be good thoughts are lost in the haze. I'm sure most give up after one read and their hair has caught fire.

I just write over your head. Lots of room.

o-<

I am not even sure if you understand what you write.

As far as this thread goes be ashured that it has not gotten to 9 pages because of your contributions.

 

[friend of the friendless]

70,

70,

70,

Sirs, Madames,

Threads like this make a case for membership by application. It's one thing to have some honest criticism from peers, anyone ranging from jg to a kid working at some Dust Bowl weekly. Or even a kid in j-school. But to have some drive-by shooting from a sj-hating troll who writes about "the media elites" is a bit much. I don't mind having pieces ship on--it has happened here and it will happen again. I have no problem with it so long as it's honest, industry criticism. And if peers want to ship on espn, knock yourselves out. Tell it here or to the ombudsman, make my day. But the lurker not-in-the-biz troll trashing those who toil and take pride in what they do and have put in years to get to their place in the game ... that isn't just tiresome. It's not an ashault on the writer. It's an ashault on the readers here. It's an ashault on the site.

o-<

It seems like you are are suggesting that readers are not allowed to criticize.

If you like a story send heaps of praise, If you don't like it then tough.

See, you're not reading closely enough ... again.

Readers have comment boxes on newspaper and magazine sites to throw their uninformed grenades into. If you are a reader and non-peer and have strongly felt opinions, send something in to the letters page. Read-only for non-SJs, I'd have no problem with. SJ would be great for peer review, the stuff of the Workshop. The unfortunate effect of having non-biz people flaming all over the place is that it drags the site into disrepute. It doesn't represent us. It's like having naturopath quacks and some guy from the health-food store commemting on the AMA site. A professional site.

o-<

Nah - it's your writing. Unless someone has the time to read your work through 10 - 12 times its barely understandable- be it a post here or one of your columns.
Everything you do is overwritten and what might be good thoughts are lost in the haze. I'm sure most give up after one read and their hair has caught fire.

I just write over your head. Lots of room.

o-<

I am not even sure if you understand what you write.

As far as this thread goes be ashured that it has not gotten to 9 pages because of your contributions.

I suppose that comes from the beating heart of SportsJournalists.com.

o-<

 

[friend of the friendless]

Sirs, Madames,

World's thinnest book: BASW, guest editor Boom70.

o-<

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

OK, because Elliotte asked, and I respect him as someone who's probably already seen the Canadiens exhibit at the Hockey HOF while I have not, I will attempt to present a substantive reply to one of CL's critiques -- namely, his problem with Part III, the point of which section seems fairly obvious to me.
(I will leave aside any response to the fourth-grade snarkery attending the basic point.)
The section begins with one athlete talking about an encounter with one president, and moves from there to a general discussion of how these two men -- and athletes/celebrities/etc. -- maintain and/or rehabilitate the public personae that developed around them during the peak of their respective career. Secondarily, it seems to be a nuanced study of how we define public figures -- do we define them by the good they have done, will do, and continue to do, or by the worst mistakes/crimes/blunders/rumors of same with which they are involved. Can they come back from the latter? Should they? Is that something they can do, or something we allow them to do? As for Tyree, it seems that he doesn't want the sum total of himself to be one catch in the SB. Albeit, it's a lower level of concern than Clinton's or Armstrong's, but as a microcosmic perspective, I think it works.
Therefore, I do not believe that you can find three random people and do the same thing, and I think an argument based on that premise fails.

Fenian - the "piece" (of crap) starts with something that happened in 1999.

1999.

For a supposed 2008 "Year in Review".

Let me ask you - what did Lance Armstrong do in 2008? Did he win the Tour de France? No. Why bring him up at all? Why bring Clinton up? Seriously. You are an intelligent person. WTF? Why the grouping of Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree? It's a Mad-Lib. Someone bet Jones that he could sneak in a reference to Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree and not get it into a piece. There's no other rational explanation other than the fact that it's a piece of crap.

I learned a long time ago that, given a respectful reasoned response, the poster in question will reach behind himself and scratch his brain. It is pointless to mention that, if you want to write about the topic of legacy (who really owns it? How can it change? Can it change at all?), one might just begin -- with a quote, mind you, of your subject relating a relevant anecdote -- in the past. It is pointless to mention that it is well within bounds while writing a year-end feature to base it partly in events that happened earlier. (Let's write about the Obama campaigh without mentioning the 2004 speech, or the McCain campaign without talking about Vietnam.) These are things that actual writers do. All of this is pointless, so fair enough.
And, Boom, if NR offered me $20K and expenses to write for them -- hell, they pay Lowry and Godlberg more than the dime-a-word those two hacks deserve - I'm on it like a shot, although I suspect that what I turn in may not be what they were looking for. And the fact that you could postulate that the late Mr. Buckley's startlingly advertising-free little magazine would offer that kind of money pretty much proves you don't know deck about the subject of this thread.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Fenian - I grant that when writing about John McCain you would want to go back to his experiences in Vietnam to color how the man McCain is today came to be who he is. But that is a red herring on your part.

The questions still stand - what did Lance Armstrong do in 2008 that warrants a section in a Year in Review piece and what the heck does Armstrong have to do with Tyree? The piece was not supposed to be about legacy. It was supposed to be about a 2008 year in review. Instead what Jones tossed out was a jumble of vignettes he probably couldn't use elsewhere. Here's Jeter at his locker signing stuff, here's a bit about Jones buying a frozen pretzel at his first game at Yankee Stadium, here's a bit about Lance Armstrong talking to Bill Clinton about magnolias, here's a bit about Jones standing at the Mexican border. Take the bits boil em, mash em and stick em in a stew and tell ESPN the Mag - here's your Year in Review and now where's my check?

For all the people signing praises about the piece - I'm still waiting for someone to explain what was so great about it.

 

[beeranyone]

If there was a way to lock--no, check that--destroy beyond recognition, my own thread I would do it to this one. Evil Basket: as you've said, you don't get this piece. So just move on.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Boo freakin hoo.

 

[MartinEnigmatica]

what did Lance Armstrong do in 2008 that warrants a section in a Year in Review piece

Well, he announced his return to competitive cycling, which is a fairly big deal, given his story and how he's a seven-time TdF winner and all. Also, Armstrong played a perfect role in what I think Jones was trying to go after, in what Fenian pointed out; legacy.
After retiring the first time, he could have devoted all his time and energy to fighting cancer off the bike, but something pulled him back in. Whether that's actually wanting to provide exposure for his foundation or because he missed the competition, it was enough for him to endure the grueling training for another season.
It's clear that despite all he has done in the world, Armstrong is not satisfied with what he has already accomplished. So in 2008, he set out to redefine his legacy and jumpstart a process that would likely alter how we remembered him.

In the strict sense of 2008 Moments of the Year, did Armstrong do anything in the sports world that warrants special mention? No. But if that's all Jones was going to do, he could have just listed the top 11 moments, said fork it, and be done.
But I find the idea of The Things We Forget very compelling, because every December we look back and remember those standout moments from the last 12 months. Every stupid year in review does it. But as the years progress, this year's awesome moments will be reduced to trivia and rough sketches, or forgotten altogether. The details of Armstrong's seven wins have dropped off and the fact that he won them remains.

It's clear Armstrong's not satisfied with that being his footnote on the world, and that's what he has to do with David Tyree, who opened the year with one of the most chance/spectacular Super Bowl catches ever. He doesn't want the helmet grab to briefly define him forever in a game of sports word ashociation, just as Armstrong wants more than to be Armstrong=7 TdF. Is it a foolish venture for Tyree, who might never gain that kind of notoriety again? Maybe, but it's clear he, both of them want to try.

 

[Boom_70]

Sirs, Madames,

World's thinnest book: BASW, guest editor Boom70.

o-<

The WORLDS biggest HACK - friend of no one

 

[Boom_70]

OK, because Elliotte asked, and I respect him as someone who's probably already seen the Canadiens exhibit at the Hockey HOF while I have not, I will attempt to present a substantive reply to one of CL's critiques -- namely, his problem with Part III, the point of which section seems fairly obvious to me.
(I will leave aside any response to the fourth-grade snarkery attending the basic point.)
The section begins with one athlete talking about an encounter with one president, and moves from there to a general discussion of how these two men -- and athletes/celebrities/etc. -- maintain and/or rehabilitate the public personae that developed around them during the peak of their respective career. Secondarily, it seems to be a nuanced study of how we define public figures -- do we define them by the good they have done, will do, and continue to do, or by the worst mistakes/crimes/blunders/rumors of same with which they are involved. Can they come back from the latter? Should they? Is that something they can do, or something we allow them to do? As for Tyree, it seems that he doesn't want the sum total of himself to be one catch in the SB. Albeit, it's a lower level of concern than Clinton's or Armstrong's, but as a microcosmic perspective, I think it works.
Therefore, I do not believe that you can find three random people and do the same thing, and I think an argument based on that premise fails.

Fenian - the "piece" (of crap) starts with something that happened in 1999.

1999.

For a supposed 2008 "Year in Review".

Let me ask you - what did Lance Armstrong do in 2008? Did he win the Tour de France? No. Why bring him up at all? Why bring Clinton up? Seriously. You are an intelligent person. WTF? Why the grouping of Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree? It's a Mad-Lib. Someone bet Jones that he could sneak in a reference to Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree and not get it into a piece. There's no other rational explanation other than the fact that it's a piece of crap.

I learned a long time ago that, given a respectful reasoned response, the poster in question will reach behind himself and scratch his brain. It is pointless to mention that, if you want to write about the topic of legacy (who really owns it? How can it change? Can it change at all?), one might just begin -- with a quote, mind you, of your subject relating a relevant anecdote -- in the past. It is pointless to mention that it is well within bounds while writing a year-end feature to base it partly in events that happened earlier. (Let's write about the Obama campaigh without mentioning the 2004 speech, or the McCain campaign without talking about Vietnam.) These are things that actual writers do. All of this is pointless, so fair enough.
And, Boom, if NR offered me $20K and expenses to write for them -- hell, they pay Lowry and Godlberg more than the dime-a-word those two hacks deserve - I'm on it like a shot, although I suspect that what I turn in may not be what they were looking for. And the fact that you could postulate that the late Mr. Buckley's startlingly advertising-free little magazine would offer that kind of money pretty much proves you don't know deck about the subject of this thread.

Fenian - you are contradicting your own stated philosophy:
" You write where you're asked and, when you do, you do good work."

 

[friend of the friendless]

Sirs, Madames,

Sirs, Madames,

World's thinnest book: BASW, guest editor Boom70.

o-<

The WORLDS biggest HACK - friend of no one

Boom is on my Secret Santa list -- I'm getting him an AP style guide and an apostrophe.

o-<

 

[Boom_70]

Sirs, Madames,

Sirs, Madames,

World's thinnest book: BASW, guest editor Boom70.

o-<

The WORLDS biggest HACK - friend of no one

Boom is on my Secret Santa list -- I'm getting him an AP style guide and an apostrophe.

o-<

Your work makes straight AP copy look good.